The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q Q”) issues the electronic bill of this case, the so-called breathbbed bill was faced with the insolvency due to the remaining issuance of the so-called breabbed bill, and eventually, sexual public industry development corporation (hereinafter “sexual public industry development”) did not properly use the electronic bill even if it was issued with the payment of the commission for the bill.

Therefore, criminal fraud against Q is not established because the development of the sexual public industry only suffered damage equivalent to the commission, and Q does not cause any damage to Q.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one-month imprisonment and one-year and eight-month imprisonment, and one-year and eight million won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there is no evidence to prove that Q has issued an electronic bill to sexual industrial development in spite of the crisis of the non-party 2's default due to the outbreak of the non-party 2's bill, as alleged by the defendant, and since the electronic bill of this case was issued by promising the defendant and sexual public industrial development to be responsible for recovery of the bill or settlement of the amount of the bill as a financing bill, as long as the Defendant and sexual public industrial development were issued without the intent or ability to recover the above bill or pay the amount of the bill, the fact that Q did not have the ability to pay the amount at the time of issuance does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the victims who agreed with the victims of the instant crime and did not want to punish the Defendant, and the electronic bill issued by Qu appears to have less economic value than its face value.